Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_irbtt05 wrote
Reply to comment by Careful_Square1742 in Why Bernie rocks! He's not wrong. by DCLexiLou
Storage and/or a better grid (w/ respect to your baseload comment). If we could transmit power longer distances, renewable surpluses in one area can be pushed to another. Especially in the case of wind turbines. (Doesn't help solar at night, obviously)
Careful_Square1742 t1_irbvb1e wrote
right, but we don't have a grid built for that, and it'll take 30 years to build it
storage is great, but we don't have the tech for utility size storage yet. you can get a battery to cover your house or even a medium sized office building for a night, but not a city. we're decades away from that
we're decades away from new nuke plants too, between permitting and construction. I guess the unfortunate reality is we need to prepare to live with climate change while we try to address it.
Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_irdks1w wrote
I agree for the most part. But I also think if we actually cared and prioritized the issue, we could solve the problem and get off oil in a couple decades.
Instead we bicker about how exactly we should tackle the problem, or whether climate change actually exists or not. Meanwhile countries like Germany and Scotland are miles ahead of us (km, perhaps?), generating significant portions of their electricity demand with renewables. Germany at about 50%, Scotland at "the equivalent of" 100%. We could do way better.
Careful_Square1742 t1_irdvfje wrote
95%+ of the problem is economics. energy is so much more expensive in Europe, the shift to renewables and the huge focus on efficiency actually makes economic sense. here in the US, thanks to essentially unrestricted lobbying, we give maybe tax credits to oil companies in the name of jobs and continued unsustainable economic growth.
If we flipped that around and used oil tax credits to incentive the shit out of energy efficiency and renewable projects, we'd have 5-10 years of economic pain but will have turbo charged the shift away from energy sources that are a feedback loop (more fossil fuels equals more CO2 means higher temperatures equals greater energy demand equals more fossil fuels) and be on a path that doesn't end up with waterworld.
EU natural gas prices, before the Ukraine war, were 2-3 times what they are in the US. now they're off the charts. I really hope Putin's greatest accomplishment by starting the war is shifting Europe to renewables completely.
Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_ire1b3l wrote
That makes a lot of sense. Due to the EROI, it's almost never cheaper (at least right now) to go with renewables.
I think flipping the subsidies makes sense. Even if the goal is not switching to renewables, the fact we still subsidize such a highly profitable industry (oil) is baffling.
Careful_Square1742 t1_ire2uau wrote
the tax incentives for renewables is the only thing that makes renewables make financial sense. fortunately the incentives just got extended.
renewables are close to cost parity with expensive fossil fuels like coal, but not natural gas - yet. I can heat my home for $700/ year on the VT gas network, but it'll cost me twice that to use a heat pump.
if I lived outside the gas network and used LP or oil, a heat pump would be far cheaper, even when you factor in needing backup heat on the coldest days.
on utility scale, however we've got a way to go. now if we stopped subsidizing coal and gas, the cost would skyrocket and push us towards a renewable system.
the cost of changing has to be less than the cost of staying the same, and we keep fossil fuels artificially cheap. we are our own worst enemy
Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_ireec59 wrote
To your last point: "the cost of changing has to be less than the cost of staying the same..."
Part of the issue here is we only look at the short-term dollar signs. We don't assign any cost to maintaining the status quo and heating up the planet. Increased storms (and storm damage), lowered crop yields, droughts, etc. These costs annually will be in the billions in the coming decades.
In that sense, low-carbon energy is far cheaper than fossil fuels even without the subsidies.
Careful_Square1742 t1_irehhji wrote
you're absolutely right.
someone needs to do a net present value calculation on a trillion dollar investment's return vs 50 years of climate change at 8% (what was considered to be a decent return in the market a couple years ago)
the challenge will be getting consensus on what the cost of climate change is annually, since a good sized chunk of the us population doesn't think it's real.
Maleficent_Rope_7844 t1_irev4mt wrote
Exactly. Calculations like that need to be ran based on data available and incorporated into policy.
Fortunately companies are beginning to see the threat in the long-term, which is good to see. Companies think longer term than most people or politicians, so I see some hope there.
Case in point: several auto manufacturers have pledged to no longer sell ICE cars in 10-15 years. That's certainly not from regulatory pressure.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments